chenGOD

This one's not bad either https://streamgg.com/v/9zcmwccd

That's a brilliant strike!

"Why can't we just be bigots in public??" Christ why do these people care so much about what goes in other people's bedrooms. Also, this belief in the divinity of the constitution is ridiculous. Can you guys like hire Nic Cage to steal it for real?

Probably more accurate than satire.

There's a show called Upload that looks at this. As well, Neal Stephenson's recent book Fall; or, Dodge in Hell has an interesting take on what that might look like.

FWP thread mate.

It went downhill as soon as communism was mentioned. So all that talk will Be henceforth be moved to the Marxist thought thread. So back on topic… Putin's army is stumbling in Ukraine. Did the West get Russia's war machine wrong? https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-army-ukraine-war-1.6393996

European countries (in general) had already started spending more on defense (only three countries spent less in 2019 than they did in 2014 - Albania, Belgium, and the UK). See the graph below - taken from here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf We may see more spending for sure in the future, Germany has already promised to spend more - I linked an article upthread.

Yes the American-led response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea was brutal. But they didn't invade North Korea. Not even the revisionist (this is not a bad word to use when describing historians) Bruce Cumings (who has written two of the most important books on the Korean War) goes as far as that (though he does use some broader context to paint the picture of the start of the war).

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-captured-part-of-one-of-russias-most-capable-electronic-warfare-systems Two interesting pieces on the war.

I don't disagree with any of that. The end goal of course is to be able to dissolve all military units and yes spend all those resources on scientific endeavours or social well-being. There's a lot to unwind though (especially the economic side of things in the US, where the military and the industrial complex that supports it is such a huge employer), so it's very doubtful we'll see that happen any time soon.

Track 6 is fucking bonkers good. Like orgasmic good. In fact the whole stretch from track 3 through to the end might be some of the best material he's released in a couple of years. Just yes.

I fully agree that the ultimate goal is to strengthen democratic values and develop institutions that are less vulnerable to corruption through transparency and open government. Unfortunately, as you can see - there are still actors in the world that challenge those ideals through the use of military force (and yes, I include the US in that category, although as noted, they haven't invaded a country for the purpose of annexation recently...). So military safeguards are still a sad necessity in the geopolitical reality we live in. For you @thefxbip When did the US invade North Korea before?

dude come on just stfu lol He just needed some fat blunts and a little Boards of Canada.

I mean, the first link there says NATO and the EU have a strong partnership, Warsaw Pact has been defunct for 30 years - so I don't quite see the relevance - sorry, honestly not trying to be obtuse, and the EU common security and defense policy is a relatively new endeavour, so it still makes sense to me that NATO would be the primary defense mechanism. I just don't understand why this is a huge issue? It's not like NATO members are suddenly going to leave the EU isolated, and they have similar defense goals. So I'm just not sure why there's such a panic about it all of a sudden. Maybe panic is too strong a word - but that's what it feels like from the material I'm reading...

I don't understand this part - NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the overlap between European countries and NATO is substantial - why wouldn't you rely on the organization you've been funding and participating in since 1949?

Syria is an international clusterfuck of epic proportions to be sure - and Putin's hand is large in that one as well. Israel vs Palestine is a disgrace for the US and Israel. Saudi and Iran interference in Yemen is outside of my caveat on nations who tend to abide by the rules. Afghanistan is another international clusterfuck, and trying to place the blame at any one particular nation's feet is a futile effort. The US had been in the country for 20 years at that point, and the fact that the Afghan administration had done nothing to secure the legitimacy of their government and institutions speaks to the rampant corruption in the country. The difference of course being that for the US - these were matters of foreign policy conducted by numerous individuals. For Russia, there was never any doubt as to who was numero uno. The US has been saying for years that Europe needs to increase defense spending (that's just a two year snapshot from 2012-2014). Sure, they may have sold arms to EU, but the EU is clearly capable of producing their own arms. Since the top 4 nations the US sells to are not in the EU (actually top 5 I guess, since the UK is not in the EU), it seems like it may have been a bit of both encouraging them to purchase arms from the US but also increase their own self-sufficiency. Regardless, Europe (including the EU) has long been an eager partner in NATO, so it's hardly a surprise that the US sells there. Recent announcements by Germany will certainly increase sales in the short-term, but the Germans are more than capable of producing world class military equipment, as is the EU writ large (as an entity, not individual nations per se). As well, the Russian invasion has spectacularly backfired in terms of limiting NATO expansionism. As you point out, the military is still a sore necessity in this day and age. With an increased appetite, you can expect sales to increase in the short term and domestic production to ramp up in the long term.

In some cases sure, but I think that international law stops more aggression than people give it credit for - at least in terms of members who generally abide by the legal standards set. The US has a very shaky record for sure - but it hasn't launched a new full scale invasion in the last decade - unless I'm missing/forgetting something? I disagree that EU foreign policy is always coordinated with US interests. To give just one terrible example - European foreign policy in Rwanda to resolve the genocide there was directly counter to US/NATO goals. The US currently does not have any FTAs with EU nations, but work is ongoing to establish an EU-US FTA. This makes sense, as the two economies are roughly commensurate - the EU being slightly larger I believe. It will be a difficult and protracted series of negotiations, as the EU will demand (rightfully) much stronger worker protections. The Biden administration will be more willing to include such protections than a Trump or other Republican-led administration, but likely not to the level that the EU will demand. So that will be very interesting to see how it plays out. Certainly, an FTA between those two blocs would be more beneficial to the EU than one with Russia - where there is no transparency at all (not saying it's perfect in the west, but there are actual actors who care and raise a fuss and don't get "disappeared" for doing so. All that to say, the EU could certainly create a cohesive foreign policy that could address Russia without relying on the US. It will take significant willpower, and the French and Germans will have to work together to overcome lingering WW2 doubts/fears/guilt. The UK would be a significant player if only it were a part of the EU, but alas, they have slowly chewed off their nose to spite their face. On matters of security they may seek to overcome their xenophobia/nationalism, but I hold little hope for economic progress or re-integration.

From wiki: We should note that this is de facto and not de jure. We should also note that after the annexation, Ukraine shut off the main source of water to Crimea, which is total BS. As a result, water rationing seems to be pretty standard: https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/12/17/water-severely-rationed-in-crimean-cities-after-all-attempts-to-solve-crisis-fail/ It seems Russia is unable to help, despite their "technological prowess". Here is also a good place to counter disinfo: https://uacrisis.org/en/hwag

In the last 20 minutes you've posted three times about him and nothing about the war. Do try and stay on topic. And please use the ignore function on him? That's what it's there for.

Knowing what is going on and having the means to do something about it without violating international law are two different things. EU has only itself to blame for that - the bureaucracy and technocracy on display at the EU parliament is staggering, and this comes from a Canadian, whose foreign minster recently said - "we are good at convening". A disconcerted EU is definitely in the interest of Russia and China, but not for the US - they want smooth trade and markets - at least most of the time, until they decide to elect nationalist dimbulbs like Trump.

Why are you still talking about him? Start posting information that you think is not disinformation and contributes to the debate? Everyone keeps talking about him - just stop? Yes - you are also old like I am. We all remember this: If this forum is able to be derailed by one poster who posts contrarian shit, we're in sad shape.

This is simply wrong, at least from a Canadian perspective. It's not the elite preventing the freezing of Russian oligarchs' assets in Canada, it is the enforcement capacity of all Canadian authorities with respect to sanctions. While the regulations do target a specific set of Russian actors, freezing orders must be made by the Governor General (currently Mary Simon - hardly one of the elite), and the process is convoluted. Enforcement authorities here have limited capacity to initiate investigations into sanctions violations. While a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry for corporations is an admirable goal (and Canada is working on developing that at a federal and provincial level), as well as a land ownership transparency registry (British Columbia has one), at a global level, who would be responsible for maintaining the registry? Who would verify the information is accurate and up-to-date? I know Piketty describes a number of private central repositories - but this would be funded by governments. Technically possible is a far stretch from implementable. To be clear - undoubtedly wealthy western elites would be impacted by this - but in Canada at least, they are not the ones preventing this from happening. Little disappointed in Piketty on this one.

ah lol, yes I see that now. Well now, steady on old chap, no need to act rashly.

That's not for us to say - and the people of Ukraine should have the most important input, as per the article I linked. The referendum was widely seen as illegal - mostly because of the part where they had Russian soldiers all over the place. The donbas situation was caused by Russian illegal annexation of Crimea, so again, Russia needs to withdraw.